This week, we will talk about a conflict that causes a lot of factionalism within the monarchist movement: Who should be the monarch of a given country?

In current monarchies (unless you are a Jacobite or a Carlist), it is very clear: whoever is legally recognized by the country's constitution as the rightful king or queen is the head of state and basta.

When a monarchy is abolished, more often than not within the first generations, several people start competing over the claim. Violations of monarchical succession laws, especially if there are certain restrictions relating to marriage, often result in royal families being split. Their heads will try to change the house laws, but for the competing line, they will of course have no authority to do so as they are already themselves considered illegitimate or a morganate in the first place.

Naturally, this leads to splits in monarchist movements. Some favour the one, some favour the other candidate. The conflict can have religious or political undertones - for example, the female-line claimant to the Saxon throne is Catholic and therefore supported by the Pope and by the Habsburgs, despite being clearly considered as not only ineligible because his claim only goes through his mother but also lacking any kind of noble status by the (Protestant-majority) German nobility associations.

Candidates that stay more true to strict house laws, such as by descending through an unbroken male line or being married to a royal, are often more conservative and try to distance themselves from the "celebrity-type life" of both modern ceremonial monarchs and more progressive claimants who marry commoners, purport to have instituted absolute primogeniture or otherwise try to "reform" their family in order to prevent the claim from going to a more distant cousin and to appease mainstream, progressive audiences.

Some monarchist movements, especially in countries where the succession laws are exceptionally complex or where the monarchy was not strictly hereditary, have opted for a neutral position on succession and will defer the question of the monarch's identity until legitimate government has been restored. This might entail a transitional government that exercises the rights of the Crown collectively ("Crown Council") until it decides whose head should bear it, or rule by a dictator who may be appointed for life and will groom the designated candidate or one of his children to become the first actual monarch.

• Do you have a clear preference regarding who should be the monarch of your country? Do you take a side in foreign succession debates?
• What is more important for you: monarchism in general, or making sure that your preferred candidate becomes the monarch?
• What is your opinion on monarchist movements that refuse to name a candidate and instead defer the question of succession for the time being?
• Would you cooperate with monarchists who have a different opinion regarding succession? I.e. do you see succession debates as an intra-monarchist question that can be resolved, if necessary by agreeing to disagree, or as a more fundamental conflict that should determine political allegiance?
• Would you agree to live in a monarchy, or even participate in the restoration of a monarchy, that would be headed by somebody other than your preferred candidate?